JEXab 






^i»- 









LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. S 



# jr # 

#■ g> 

f UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. ! 



>^ 



3^ 









3^ 






£2Mr 


~> 


► ^te> ■ 


^> 


► : ^ms>~ 


^i 


>3W 


^> 


3 g 


> 


> 3lir 


~^> 


"k -N. *.- 





V 



TRUTH VINDICATED. 



SENATOR PRICE 



AND THE 



EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 



T. K. & P. G. Collins, Printers and Publishers, No. 1 Lodge Alley. 

1 



■TsrTs 



TRUTH VINDICATED. 



SENATOR TRICE AND THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE. 

The Temperance Executive Committee, of Philadelphia, deeply regret the 
necessity forced upon them to present to the public the following brief statement 
of the unhappy controversy in which they have most unexpectedly become in- 
volved with Mr. Price, in his official capacity as one of the senatorial representa- 
tion from this city. They have not, in a captious, fault-finding spirit, assailed 
Mr. Price. If others lament this controversy, they do so infinitely more. But 
the question forced upon us was simply this : Shall we remain silent while the 
gentleman elected by the generous confidence of the friends of Temperance is, by 
his influence, his speeches, and his votes, defeating in the Senate the very object 
for the accomplishment of which he was elected ? Shall we suffer the cause of 
humanity, of domestic peace, and the public welfare, so far as it is identified with 
the suppression of intemperance, to suffer serious, if not fatal, injury from defer- 
ence and forbearance towards the gentleman who had it specially in charge ? 
Shall we bear the reproach of inducing hundreds and thousands of our most re- 
spectable citizens to aid in the election of Mr. Price, and say not a word when 
he so sadly disappointed their expectations and ours ? 

In these circumstances, as honest men, to whom had been committed a sacred 
public trust, we could not hesitate in regard to our duty. But let it be observed, 
we took no steps hastily or rashly. When Mr. Price cast his repeated votes in 
opposition to the bill before the Senate, and when that bill was defeated by his 
speech and his vote, we were filled with grief and surprise. But still, we did not 
abandon Mr. Price. We hoped that kind remonstrance and earnest appeal would 
avert the calamity that has occurred. Consequently, a letter was prepared, bear- 
ing date February 10, and dispatched by a special messenger to Mr. Price. We 
beg to call particular attention to this brief communication, as evincing the tem- 
per .and spirit, and respectful deference towards Mr. Price. Mr. Price says of it, 
" its frank and friendly tone demands a like reply." What the character of that 
reply is, every man will judge for himself. 

The first document which we introduce in this painful history is the " Clerical 
Appeal," which was read to Mr. Price previous to its publication, and of which 
he promptly and emphatically said : " / should regard myself a bad man if I 
could not indorse that paper." This was previous to Mr. Price's receiving the 
nomination of the Temperance Convention. The Committee who waited on him 
asked permission to read to him the " Appeal," for the sole purpose of bringing 
before him, in a definite, explicit form, the principles and the measures which he 
would be expected to advocate in the event of his election. We beg the special 
attention of the public to this document. Can there be a doubt on the mind of 
any intelligent man as to its scope, and aim, and object? The " Maine Law," 
and a Prohibitory Law, are interchangeably used. A stringent license law is 



discussed, and its utter insufficiency, in our present emergency, shown. It was 
the emphatic indorsement of this " Appeal" that satisfied the Committee that Mr. 
Price was a safe man to be elected as the champion of Prohibition. It was this 
that secured his nomination in the Temperance Convention — this, that gave him 
the high official position which he now occupies. Mr. Price admits he made the 
declaration above quoted, but says, in a letter dated February 15, " you read 
your circular, the temperate spirit of which I approved." If the Committee 
had not understood that Mr. Price approved the principles and the measures 
advocated in the " Appeal," as well as its temperate spirit, he would not have 
been nominated by the Convention, and the other nominations he received 
would have failed in securing his election by more than three thousand votes. 

In proof of this a single fact will suffice. Thomas S. Smith, Esq., was one of 
the candidates of the friends of temperance. He was also the candidate of the 
Paid Fire Department. Mr. Smith received four thousand two hundred and 
sixty-nine votes, and Mr. Price four thousand eight hundred and nine votes, just 
five hundred and forty more than Mr. Smith. No intelligent man who has 
examined this matter will pretend that the Paid Fire Department, as a distinct 
party organization, polled five hundred votes. Consequently, Mr. Price received 
three thousand seven hundred and sixty temperance votes, enough we should 
think to lay him under pretty strong obligation to advocate and sustain any rea- 
sonable measures brought forward to exterminate the curse of rum. 

At the suggestion of Mr. Price to Charles Eobb, Esq., one of the Committee, 
fifty thousand copies of the " Appeal" were subsequently published and distri- 
buted from house to house previous to the election. The following is the docu- 
ment : — 



APPEAL FOR THE MAINE LAW. 

Having understood that the " Appeal" of the Clergy of the city and county of 
Philadelphia, in behalf of the cause of Temperance, recently published in the 
daily papers, is about to be issued in a form adapted to general circulation, we 
cheerfully comply with the request made to us, to express our cordial approbation 
of the spirit, reasoning, and conclusions of that paper. The representations of 
the evils of intemperance are not, in our judgment, at all exaggerated; and the 
proposition to refer the enactment of a Prohibitory Law to be passed upon by the 
votes of the people, is in perfect accordance with democratic doctrine and our 
republican institutions. 

Philadelphia, Sept. 28, 1853. 



Thomas Allibone, 


Caspar Morris, M. D., 


John W. Ashmead, 


J. M. Linnard, 


Matthew Newkirk, 


Samuel H. Perkins, 


Jno. W. Claghorn, 


William W. Keen, 


J. B. Mitchell, 


Samuel T. Bodine, 


Edward S. Whelen, 


Robert J. Mercer, 


James N. Marks, 


C. Hieskell, 


Thomas Wattson, 


James A. Porteus, 


Samuel T. Altemus, 


Thomas T. Butcher. 



Fellow-Citizens : At a meeting of the Clergy of the various denominations 
residing in the city and county of Philadelphia, convened by public notice, on 
the 80th ultimo, at the First Presbyterian Church, Washington Square, the pre- 
sent aspect of the Temperance Reformation was freely and fully discussed. The 
fearful ravages of Intemperance, blighting and desolating so many habitations, 
the victims of this vice reeling in our streets, or confined as vagrants in our pri- 
sons, and especially the numerous dram-shops and more respectable drinking 
establishments, with all the accommodations and appliances to perpetuate and 
extend the evil which weighs so heavily upon the community, were pondered with 



deep and painful solicitude. The inquiry was raised, whether the Clergy, with- 
out entering the arena of politics, or stepping aside from their appropriate voca- 
tion, may not, as citizens equally interested with others, in a public Address, 
exert some influence in combining and concentrating the efforts of those who see, 
with deep concern, the havoc of this ruthless destroyer. The unanimous decision 
of this question in the affirmative is our apology and justification in soliciting 
your earnest attention and serious consideration to the facts, suggestions; and 
arguments, which we shall present. 

The Temperance Reformation in this country, assuming a definite and organized 
form some thirty years since, was urgently and imperatively demanded by the 
necessities of a suffering people. Alcoholic drinks as a beverage were common, 
and nearly universal. The effect, at length, startled and alarmed all classes, save 
those who were habituated to their use, and an effort was made to stay this tide 
of woe. A great work was accomplished. Tens of thousands were saved from a 
life of shame and a grave of infamy. All praise to the pioneers in this benefi- 
cent and noble cause. Fond anticipations were cherished, that the reign of in- 
temperance would soon be at an end j that when the victims of this vice had 
passed away, there would be few to fill their places. "We need not say how sad 
was this delusion. The ranks of intemperance were scarcely thinned, in conse- 
quence of the new recruits daily furnished from tippling-shops and the more 
genteel resorts of fashionable drinking. Relentless avarice, deaf to all entreaty, 
and in spite of the remonstrances and tears of widows and orphans, persisted in 
holding out the maddening cup, and tempting to their ruin, the ignorant, the 
inconsiderate, and the young. — The venders of ardent spirits were appealed to 
with earnest importunity, to desist from their demoralizing, ruinous work. In 
many cases, the appeal was successful; in others, it was met with taunts and 
sneers, and a defiant obstinacy. In this emergency, it was determined to invoke 
legislative aid, to correct and suppress an abuse which was regarded too grievous 
to be longer endured. To the State of Maine, the first honor is due, for legisla- 
tive enactment, which put under the ban of proscription, the sale of ardent spirits 
as a beverage. The effect of this enlightened policy has been marked and mar- 
vellous. — Order has taken the place of feuds and petty bickerings, industry of 
indolence, and cheerful competence of pinching poverty and want. Children, 
clothed in rags and scantily fed, are suitably clad, and sent daily to school. 
Wives, who have been martyrs to drunken, brutal husbands, rejoice in domestic 
peace, and plenty, and comfort. Jails and poorhouses, under the auspicious in- 
fluence of the " Maine Law/' are becoming tenantless. The jail at Augusta, the 
capital of the State, was a few weeks since without an inmate. The jail in Port- 
land, a city of twenty-two thousand inhabitants, contained but nine persons, and 
five of these were imprisoned for violating the prohibitory law. Massachusetts, 
Vermont, and Rhode Island, have enacted prohibitory laws similar to that of 
Maine. In regard to the practical working of the law in Vermont, the St. Allans 
Messenger says : — 

" On the eighth day of March, the Law, which is the expression of the public 
judgment and will, declared the sale of liquor as a beverage, to be a crime. After 
four months' experience, what is the result ? It has fulfilled the predictions of 
its friends, and has not fulfilled the prophecies and wishes of its enemies. Not 
all, but more than two-thirds of the selling of liquor has been stopped. An 
intoxicated man rarely is seen in public. A drunken man in the streets is a 
curiosity. Quarrelling, mobs, riots, and street revelry have nearly ceased. Pub- 
lic assemblies are quiet, and large crowds meet without disorder or confusion. 
Three jails, which confine the rascals of a population of more than thirty-nine 
thousand inhabitants, have been emptied of inmates. The sale of liquor and the 
drinking of liquor have fallen below rum-mark, and have received a stamp of 
infamy unknown before. 

" The law has accomplished its end thus far so well, that its early friends are 



greatly encouraged, and those who honestly feared that it might work badly, are 
now its firm supporters. Few are the respectable men who dare publicly speak 
against it. It has wrought a great and manifest good, and it stands much 
stronger in the affections of the people than at any previous day. No newspaper 
in this State which favored the law at the first, has ceased to favor it. Some 
that were neutral, now openly support it, and all (with one or two exceptions), 
that formerly opposed it, have been studiously silent. The Maine Liquor Law 
in this State is an ' Institution/ — a fixed fact, and we believe that a blessing 
attends it, and attends the people who try to live up to its spirit and letter." 

The presentments of Grand Juries are regarded as a reliable source of infor- 
mation in respect to prevailing evils which demand correction and removal. We 
present, fellow-citizens, for your serious consideration, the following statements 
of several successive Grand Juries, in which the blighting effects of intemperance 
are so honestly and truthfully portrayed. At the June Term of the Court of 
Quarter Sessions for the City and County of Philadelphia, 1851, the Grand Jury, 
speaking of the large number committed at a very great cost to the County 
Prison, under the head of " Vagrancy," says : — 

"Upon an examination, we are of the opinion that the primary cause of these 
commitments is mainly attributable to the tippling-houses, lager-beer saloons, 
and oyster cellars, which have increased, and are still increasing upon us with 
fearful rapidity." 

In another presentment, at a subsequent session of the court, they use the 
following impressive language : — 

" The Grand Jury have no doubt whatever that the disorderly and riotous 
spirit manifested everywhere in the city and county, is owing mainly to the sale 
of intoxicating drinks ; and that much of the poverty, which eats like a cancer 
into the vitals of society, is attributable to this nefarious traffic. Not only the 
licensed houses, which probably amount to thousands, but the unlicensed, which 
are greater in number, must be supported by the profits made in the trade. The 
whole of the licensed and unlicensed number at least three or four thousand. 
To any one who will take the trouble to estimate the amount of money which it 
takes to support these establishments, it will be made manifest that, upon an 
average, they must sell to the amount of eighteen hundred dollars each in a year, 
one-third of which is profit, or say six hundred dollars a year for each house — 
and they can scarcely pay house-rent and live upon less. This appalling account 
makes the figures rise to five millions four hundred thousand dollars, paid yearly 
in the city and county of Philadelphia for intoxicating drinks. The loss of time 
by the unfortunate inebriates must be more than equal to the cost of liquor to 
them, and the whole is a dead loss to the community." 

Another Grand Jury speak as follows: — 

" The Grand Inquest cannot close their labors without reference to a matter 
which at this time is properly exciting the public attention. The effects result- 
ing from the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors are most terrifying in 
the city and county. And to remedy this frowning and fatal evil, we earnestly 
recommend that our next Legislature pass such a law as will eventually eradicate 
the evils it produces." 

In view of these facts and remonstrances, touching evils rampant and abound- 
ing in our midst, who will deny the necessity of vigorous and combined efforts 
to arrest the burning tide of intemperance? Who will insist that a further 
delay is wise or expedient in drying up these bitter fountains of sin and woe? 
Two methods only are presented which hold out the promise of relief. The 
first, which rallies in its support a large number of intelligent, respectable, con- 
scientious men, proposes to modify the license laws, and make them so stringent 
that most of the evils now prevalent from the sale of intoxicating drinks shall 
be removed. This method is specious, and we are not surprised that it should 
have many advocates. But what are the facts connected with the sad history of 



intemperance? For two hundred years the license laws in this country have 
been tried under every modification, and yet the victims of intemperance are 
multiplied, and fifty thousand at least of our countrymen annually fill the 
drunkard's grave. 

Stringent license laws, faithfully enforced, would indeed be an inconceivable 
gain over the present demoralizing, iniquitous system of the rum traffic. Almost 
anything is better than the existing legislative provision by which, on the pay- 
ment of a paltry tax, every hovel may be opened for the sale of " liquid fire" at 
three cents per glass. If rum must be sold, let it be done under as many re- 
strictions as legislative wisdom can impose. But no stringency of legislative 
enactments will remove the terrible evils of intemperance which press with 
mountain weight upon us. Two hundred years, assuredly, is long enough for a 
fair experiment. At the close of this long period, we find ourselves in a far 
worse condition than were those for whose protection and safety license laws 
were first enacted. So long as the law lends its sanction to rum-selling, the 
rapacity of avarice will find out methods to gratify the depraved appetites of 
rum-drinkers. 

The only alternative, then, as it seems to us — the only sure protection against 
the appalling evils of intemperance, is a law prohibiting the sale of intoxicating 
drinks as a beverage. We are aware that this ground will be fiercely assailed 
by many as unconstitutional, untenable, and the climax of fanaticism. It will 
be urged that this measure is coercive, and that coercion is incompatible with 
free, republican institutions. It will also be urged that the capital invested in 
the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits is a valid objection against all legis- 
lative enactments, such as we have suggested. 

In respect to the constitutionality of a prohibitory law, we are fortified in our 
position by the highest judicial authority, to wit, the opinion of the Supreme 
Court of the United States. 

The opinion of all the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States on the 
several points of this law, may be found in the fifth volume of Howard's Eeports 
of Decisions in United States Courts, page 504. 

Chief- Justice Taney said : — 

" If any State deems the retail and internal traffic in ardent spirits injurious 
to its citizens, and calculated to produce idleness, vice, and debauchery, I see 
nothing in the Constitution of the United States to prevent it from regulating 
and restraining the traffic, or from prohibiting it altogether, if it thinks proper. 

11 Every State, therefore, may regulate its own internal traffic, according to its 
own judgment, and upon its own views of the interest and well-being of its citi- 
zens." — [5 Howard, 537.] 

Mr. Justice McLean said : — 

"If the foreign article be injurious to health or the morals of the community, 
a State may, in the exercise of that great and comprehensive police power, which 
lies at the foundation of its prosperity, prohibit the sale of it." — [5 Howard, 592.] 

And in regard to the destruction of property, he said : — 

" The acknowledged police power of a State extends often to the destruction 
of property. A nuisance may be abated. Everything prejudicial to the health 
or morals of a city may be removed. Merchandise from a port where a conta- 
gious disease prevails, being liable to communicate disease, may be excluded, and, 
in extreme cases, it may be thrown into the sea." 

Mr. Justice Catron said : — 

" I admit as inevitable, that if the State has the power of restraint by licenses 
to any extent, she has the discretionary power to judge of its limit, and may go 
the length of prohibiting it altogether, if such be its policy." 

This is a sufficient reply to those who object to a prohibitory law, on constitu- 
tional grounds. 

In regard to coercion, we recommend no measures which can be fairly inter- 



6 

preted as having a bearing of this kind. If a prohibitory law is not demanded 
and sanctioned by a majority of the people, we have no desire to see its enact- 
ment. What we ask is, that this question shall be fairly tested, by referring it 
to the people, as was recently done in the State of Michigan. Ten thousand 
majority there proved that a prohibitory law was loudly called for. We believe 
that a popular vote would show that a majority of twenty thousand in this State 
demand the same thing. 

As to the capital invested in the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits, we 
have, only to reply, that the effects of these sales take from the wealth of the 
community, every year, fifty times the amount that is invested in the rum-traffic. 
On the score of dollars and cents, the people could well afford to make a bonfire 
of every distillery and dram-shop in the land, and maintain in elegant opulence 
those who derive their support from them, if they might have the privilege of 
forever closing these sources of agony and woe. But what right, we ask, has 
any class of men to flourish and fatten upon the vices of their neighbors ? What 
right have rum-sellers to clothe their daughters in satin and silk, while the fami- 
lies of those whom they stealthily rob are clothed in rags ? What right have 
they to make paupers, and throw them upon the public to support? What right 
have they to fill our prisons and almshouses with miserable inebriates, who are 
a stain and a curse upon the body politic ? Talk of their rights ! The robber 
who takes your purse by violence and threats, has an equal right to your estate, 
for his forbearance in sparing your life. 

The fearful pestilence which has raged with such appalling violence in New 
Orleans, has awakened a profound sympathy throughout the length and breadth 
of the land. The sudden and untimely death of seven thousand of its victims 
has sent a thrill of anguish to every feeling heart. But more than seven times 
this number are every year immolated on the shrine of intemperance. That 
was a visitation of God — this comes, not by his ordinance, but by man's infatua- 
tion and madness. That scourge carried no moral contagion in its devastating 
track. Intemperance brings upon the soul deep stains of guilt, and makes its 
victims brutes and demons. And shall this enemy be suffered longer to stalk 
forth, scattering, like the angel in Apocalyptic vision, hailstones and fire, and 
tormenting men ? In your decision, fellow-citizens, the answer to this ques- 
tion will be found. If men of enlarged, comprehensive, correct views, shall be 
selected and sent to the next legislature — men who regard the sorrows of suffer- 
ing humanity more than party and political ties — men who are willing to bear 
reproach for the public good — the triumph of the cause we advocate is certain. 
We recommend no unlawful policy; we urge no fanatical measures. But so 
thorough is our conviction that truth and righteousness, and the public weal 
demand a prohibitory liquor law that we earnestly appeal to our fellow-citizens 
to lend their influence and personal efforts to secure it. We do not enter the 
arena of politics. We are satisfied with any class of men, whatever may be their 
party predilections, who will pledge themselves to sustain and carry through a 
prohibitory law. They shall be esteemed public benefactors, and if no monu- 
ments perpetuate their fame, their names shall be lisped with gratitude by 
smiling infancy, and upon their heads perpetual blessings shall be invoked by 
thousands, who will be restored to happiness and domestic quiet by their benefi- 
cent agency. 

We are aware that the great obstacle to the success of the enterprise we advo- 
cate, arises from the strength of political attachments and alliances. But what 
is the value of any or of all political organizations compared with staying the 
burning tide which scathes so many habitations and blights so many hopes ? It 
is time that party predilections gave way to the cries and tears and beseeching 
appeals of suffering humanity. It is time that the sanction of the law should 
no longer be afforded to those who prosecute a business, whose legitimate fruits 
are poverty, insanity, domestic misery, decrepitude, and premature death. The 



statistics of crime prove how powerful are the incentives of intoxicating drinks 
to the perpetration of those outrages which appall us by their frequency and 
dreadful enormity. A distinguished jurist in the State of New York said some 
time since: "Eighteen persons have been brought to the bar of this court 
charged with the crime of murder. Every case/' said he, " had its origin, di- 
rectly or indirectly, in intemperance." Other jurists bear similar testimony. 
In the city of Syracuse, there were 1799 arrests during the year 1852. Twelve 
hundred and forty-five of these arrests were occasioned by intemperance. In 
the State of New York, thirty-six thousand one hundred and fourteen persons, 
in 1849, were consigned to the various prisons for crimes committed under the 
influence of intoxication. The people were taxed for the support of sixty-nine 
thousand two hundred and sixty paupers, made such by this vice. 

And who does not know that everywhere, the petty feuds, personal assault*, 
and breaches of the peace in various ways, may be traced, almost without excep- 
tion, to the maddening influence of intoxicating drinks ? Who does not know 
that we should be relieved at once of two-thirds of our oppressive poor-tax, if 
ardent spirits were put beyond the reach of miserable inebriates? Shall it not 
be done ? Shall a traffic which has not one redeeming feature to save it from 
universal reprobation be longer tolerated ? Shall our youth be longer exposed 
to the fatal snares which encircle their path? Shall a class of men, unmoved by 
the sorrows and the anguish with which they fill so many habitations, any longer 
be protected in their nefarious business by the sanction of law ? 

We appeal to professing Christians, by whatever name they may be called, to 
give their hearty co-operation in securing the enactment of a prohibitory law, 
which has proved so beneficent in its influences, and so glorious in its issues in 
several sister States. The spirit and the precepts of our holy religion make the 
obligation imperative on them, to sacrifice party predilections to the public good. 
They have been taught by unerring wisdom, that " it is good neither to eat flesh, 
nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby their brother stumbleth or is offended, 
or is made weak." They know that temperance is one of the cardinal Christian 
virtues, and that " no drunkard shall inherit the kingdom of God." May we not 
then confidently expect that Christian men will be found, with strong hands and 
united hearts, on the side of this great reform so urgently and imperatively 
required? 

We appeal to patriots and philanthropists for their countenance and aid. 
Among all the important enterprises which characterize the present age, we are 
sure there is not one, where patriotism and philanthropy can find a wider scope 
for their beneficent agency than that of interdicting, by legislative authority, the 
rum-traffic. Proscribe this, and seven-tenths of the evils which weigh so heavily 
upon us will at once be cured. Our jails, and penitentiaries, and almshouses 
will soon show how subtle and powerful an enemy we have conquered. 

We make our appeal to tax- payers. Full well we know the burdens you are 
compelled to bear in supporting the victims of intemperance. You pray for 
relief. We point you to the means of securing it. The remedy we propose is 
speedy and infallible, and has this special recommendation, that it has been tried 
and has proved entirely efficacious. 

The Hon. Edward Everett, late Secretary of State, computes that the use of 
alcoholic beverages costs in the United States directly, in ten years, one mil- 
lion two hundred thousand dollars ; has burned, or otherwise destroyed, five 
million dollars more of property; has destroyed three hundred thousand lives; 
sent one hundred and fifty thousand to our prisons, and one hundred thousand 
children to the poorhouse; caused fifteen hundred murders ; two thousand suicides; 
and has bequeathed to the country one million orphan children. 

The pauper tax of a small town in the State of Maine was one year eleven 
hundred dollars. The next year, it was three hundred. The annual saving to 
Portland, through the influence of a prohibitory law, is estimated at three hundred 



and twenty-eight thousand dollars. Vermont has advertised three of her prin- 
cipal jails to rent. Now, why should your hard earnings be wrested from you 
to support a traffic which has always been a bane and a curse wherever tolerated? 
"Why should you toil to maintain, in elegant indolence, rum-sellers and their 
victims? Let your purpose be unalterably fixed, that this glaring injustice, with 
your consent, shall no longer exist. 

Finally, we appeal to wives, mothers, and sisters. Here we know our appeal 
will not be in vain. If legislative authority were committed to your hands, a 
month would not pass, before the fires of every distillery in the State would be 
put out, every dram-shop closed, and the nefarious business of drunkard-making 
forever at an end. You have felt the maddening effects of rum, in brutal assaults, 
pinching poverty, midnight brawls, bitter curses, and fiendish spite. In the 
aaguish of your spirits, you have often cried, " Lord, how long ?" If 
others urge that a prohibitory liquor law is fanaticism, your response is, fanati- 
cism is better than curses, and bruises, and a living death. Give us anything 
but besotted, drunken husbands, fathers, and sons. We are sure, then, of your 
earnest, persevering aid. Implore these husbands, fathers, and sons, when free 
from the influence of the maddening cup, for your sakes, for the sake of their 
suffering wives and children, to cast their votes for those who will remove 
temptation out of their way, and restore them to sobriety, and happiness, and 
domestic peace. 

Fellow-citizens, we have done our duty — we trust you will do yours. 

A. EOOD, N. S. Presbyterian. 
FRANCIS HODGSON, Ep. Methodist. 
THEOPHILUS STORK, Lutheran. 
WM. NEILL, 0. S. Presbyterian. 
RICHARD NEWTON, Episcopal. 
JOSEPH KENNARD, Baptist. 
A. A. WILLETS, Dutch Reformed. 

Committee. 
Philadelphia, September 20, 1853. 

Mr. Price's votes and published speech on the bill before the Senate called 
forth from the Executive Committee the following letter: — 

Philadelphia, Feb. 16, 1854. 

Hon. Eli K. Price — Dear Sir: The Executive Committee of this city, 
composed of two hundred and fifty of the active friends of the temperance re- 
form, have watched with deep solicitude the movements in the Legislature rela- 
tive to the prohibitory bill now under discussion. You will not deem it disre- 
spectful or intrusive, if we state to you, in all frankness, our wishes, anxieties, 
and fears. You were selected as our candidate in the October election, on 
account of your unexceptionable antecedents, your known ability, the entire 
confidence ever reposed in your honesty and integrity, and the assurance we 
received from the Committee who waited on you, that our cause would be safe in 
your hands. By combined and vigorous efforts we succeeded in securing your 
election. 

If these efforts had not been put forth, you are doubtless aware that you 
would have failed by more than two thousand votes. We rejoiced greatly in the 
triumph we achieved. We looked forward to the meeting of the Legislature 
with the most pleasing anticipations, and felt a strong confidence that measures 
would be adopted to proscribe the promiscuous sale of intoxicating drinks, or at 
least that the question of their continuance or suppression would be referred to 
a vote of the people. 

We understood, at the time of your nomination, that you would advocate the 



9 

latter measure. We understand you as reiterating the same thing in your pub- 
lished speech a few days since. And yet, we know not how to reconcile this 
repeated assurance with nearly every vote you have given since the prohibitory 
bill has been before the Senate. We are not so much surprised at your opposi- 
tion to the eighth section, authorizing the right of search, although we regard 
that as highly important to the efficiency of the bill. But we have noticed, with 
great regret, that you voted against the main feature of a Prohibitory Bill. It 
seems thus far to have met with no favor at your hands, notwithstanding the 
responsibility of accepting or rejecting it will rest with the people ! 

We pray you not to misapprehend us. All we ask of you now, is identically 
the same as the assurance you gave us previous to your election, to wit : that 
you will advocate, and, so far as your influence extends, secure the passage of a 
prohibitory law in any form, in which it can he properly, fairly, and intelligently 
submitted to a popular vote ! 

We shall regard it as a sore and dreadful calamity if any misconception of 
yotfr views on our part previous to your election, shall result in the defeat of a 
measure infinitely more important to the dearest interests of the people of this 
State than any that can come before the Legislature. And yet we have a pain- 
ful apprehension that this may be the case. The stringent License Law you 
have introduced as a substitute for a Prohibitory Law, you will permit us to say, 
in all frankness and candor, we regard, to say the least of it, as most unfor- 
tunate. The question as it is presented to us is this : not whether a stringent 
License Law is not to be preferred to the present iniquitous demoralizing License 
Law; — this we freely grant. But the question is this: Should such a law meet 
with any favor when it jeopardizes the enactment of a Prohibitory Laio? This 
is the question. Not only so ; we have not the slightest doubt, from the recorded 
votes in the Senate, which we have carefully scrutinized, that, if you saw your 
way clear to advocate and support a Prohibitory Law, to be passed upon by the 
people, the measure would at once be adopted. If it fails through your agency, 
we need not tell you our disappointment and mortification and sorrow will be 
great; 

We beg you, dear sir, to distinctly understand that we can give no counte- 
nance or support in the present aspect of things to any modification of the License 
Law. If you think it to be your duty to advocate such a measure, we trust that 
you will, as an act of justice to us, publicly say that you do it on your own 
responsibility, and in opposition to the wishes of those by whose instrumentality 
you occupy your present position. 

If, in any respects, we have misapprehended your recent course and your 
recent votes, we shall be most happy to be set right. 

We remain very respectfully, sir, your fellow-citizens. 

WM. F. SMITH, Chairman. 

COURTLAND F. FOLWELL, 

Secretary of the City and County Executive Committee. 

Mr. Price returned the following answer : — 

Harrisburg, Feb. 17, 1854. 

To the Executive Committee of the Friends of the Temperance Reform: — 

Gentlemen: I have received to-day, through the hands of the Rev. A. 
Rood, your communication to me under yesterday's date. Its frank and friendly 
tone demands a like reply. You will recollect that I had received a nomination 
before that of the Friends of Temperance, and was sustained by two other great 
Reform Parties, to wit : One for the reorganization of the Fire Department, the 
other for the Consolidation of all the Municipalities of Philadelphia into one 
city, without either of which, I should not have been elected. I admit that, with- 



10 

out your vigorous efforts combined with those of others, I should not have been 
elected. 

When you nominated me, it is true, you knew the " antecedents" of my life ; 
and when your Committee entered my office, the first thing I told them was, that 
the only pledge I would give them was that which my life might afford. My 
letter of the 30th July, accepting the nomination first given me, had said as 
much. If I know myself, the foremost pledge thus implied was, that, while I 
should ever be the consistent friend of temperance, no earthly consideration 
could induce me to surrender my convictions of constitutional liberty. 

In my published letter, I concluded my remarks on the subject of the evils of 
intemperance with the significant words that legislation upon the subject should 
be " wisely and constitutionally enacted." While urging the timely and careful 
preparation of bills before the meeting of the Legislature, I further said : " To 
any specific form, measure, or extent of relief or change, I now make no such 
pledge as will forestall discussion, or preclude the adoption of the results of the 
invited labors of the citizens in the preparation of bills, or of their further dis- 
cussion in the Legislature." 

After I had told your Committee that I should make no pledges, and they 
had told me that they asked none, as I aver was the fact, I could not suppose 
the conversation that ensued could be taken away as a pledge. But if regarded 
as such, it was candidly stated by me that I was not prepared to vote for a Pro- 
hibitory Liquor Law, should such a bill be brought forward ; and I was told, as 
distinctly, that all that was expected of me was that I would vote for a law to 
take the vote of the people whether they would have a prohibitory law enacted 
or not. On this footing you put my name before the people in the circular there 
read to me, containing these words : " In regard to coercion, we recommend 
no measure which can fairly be interpreted as having a bearing of this kind : if 
a Prohibitory Law is not demanded and sanctioned by a majority of the people, 
we have no desire to see its enactment." Now, all that I said I was willing to 
do, and all that you asked the people to vote for me to do, I am now and have 
at all times been ready to do. I am prepared to advocate the passage of a law 
to take the vote of the people upon any prohibitory bill that the friends of tem- 
perance may choose to prepare for the acceptance or rejection of the voters of 
this Commonwealth. 

But a very different demand has been made upon me here. Instead of a bill 
to take the vote of the people whether they would have such a law enacted or 
not, it has been demanded of me to vote at once for the passage of such a law, 
before the vote of the people has been taken with a section authorizing them to 
take a vote to instruct a future Legislature for its repeal. It has been demanded 
of me, therefore, to vote for the law that I had told your Committee I could not 
vote for ; and to do a different thing from that you had told all the voters I was 
expected to do. Yet, surprise is manifested that I cannot change from the 
ground upon which the voters gave me their confidence, nor yield my convic- 
tions and fidelity to the constitution. 

My votes upon the different sections of the Senate bill, are easily explicable, 
by adverting to the two leading principles of the bill. The first and second sec- 
tions create government agencies for the purchase and sale of liquors, a purpose 
for which, in my opinion, the government was never established. The eighth 
section confers the right of search in dwelling-houses, and of the seizure there 
and destruction of liquors kept for sale. This would be a power which I con- 
sider in conflict with the constitution, an unlawful invasion of the rights and 
liberties of the citizen. 

Yet, if you wish to try the sense of the people whether they will accept such 
a law, you can have my vote to pass a law to take the vote of the people upon 
it; but not my aid afterwards to pass such a law. 

You misapprehend my motive in offering the Bill for regulating the license 



11 

system in Philadelphia County. It was not offered as a substitute for the Pro- 
hibitory Law; nor in anywise in behalf of the prohibitory temperance men. It 
was in behalf of other citizens, willing to diminish the aggravated evils of intem- 
perance, growing out of a local law authorizing anybody to open a groggery when 
and where he pleases. It is believed by them that some time may elapse before 
a Prohibitory Law will go into effect there, and they do not think it right that 
the horrid evils of drunkenness should be suffered to continue as a means of 
hastening a remedy. 

For the kind and friendly expressions in your letter I thank you ; and I can- 
not conclude this answer without the expression of a sincere hope that so much 
good feeling and zeal as I believe to actuate you, may be made available in a 
tempered and practical result for the repression of intemperance. 
I am ; very respectfully, &o. 

ELI K. PRICE. 

The Committee made the following rejoinder: — 
Honorable Eli K. Price and the Temperance Executive Committee. 

The reply of the Honorable Eli K. Price to the letter addressed to him by 
the Executive Committee, received this day, we cannot permit to pass without 
an expression of deep surprise and unfeigned regret. It is needless to enter into 
a history of the circumstances which induced us to give Mr. Price our earnest 
and combined efforts to secure his election to the Senate of our State. We did 
so under the full conviction that our cause would be safe in his hands. Whether 
we had reason for this confidence, one or two well-attested facts will show. A 
committee of three gentlemen called on Mr. Price previous to his receiving the 
nomination of the Temperance Convention. They thought it best, in order to 
present to Mr. Price, in a definite, explicit form, the views of the friends of a 
Prohibitory Law, to read to him the Clerical Address which had been prepared, 
but had not been published. They did this under the conviction that it em- 
bodied the main principles and measures which the friends of temperance would 
expect him to advocate in the event of his election. Mr. Price, on hearing it 
read, immediately said: "I should regard myself a bad man, if I could not 
indorse that paper." 

The Committee replied : We ask nothing more. We do not wish a written 
pledge that you will advocate our cause. Mr. Price admits that he used these 
words, but says, it was "the temperate spirit which he approved." But it is 
certain the Committee did not so understand him. It is certain that Mr. Price 
did not give a hint that the principles of that address did not accord with his 
views. It is also certain that Mr. Price advised that the Address should be 
printed without modification or alteration, and circulated to the widest possible 
extent. The expression, " I should regard myself a bad man, if I could not 
indorse that paper," was, to say the least of it, a very strong one, if it was 
intended to apply exclusively to its " temperate spirit." The tone and spirit of a 
document is one thing — the principles and measures it advocates, a very different 
thing. A man may well regard himself a "bad man," if he does not approve of 
principles and measures which lie at the foundation of social happiness and the 
public welfare — but hardly that, if he does not approve of the spirit of a paper 
presented to him. 

Another fact — Mr. Price said, in a conversation with a prominent gentleman, 
a member of the Executive Committee, that he should not feel called upon "to 
fight through" a prohibitory law; but if he found that such a law could be car- 
ried, he would lend it his support. To another gentleman : that he would do 
what he could to forward the wishes of the friends of a prohibitory law. It is 
due to Mr. Price to say, that he distinctly stated that he could not advocate the 
passage of a peremptory prohibitory law, without submitting the question to be 



12 

passed upon by the people. Of this we do not complain. It is the exact line 
of policy which we adopted previous to the election, and by it we will abide. 

In Mr. Price's letter he says : " My vote upon the different sections of the 
Senate bill are easily explicable, by adverting to two leading principles of the 
bill. The first and second sections create government agencies for the purchase 
and sale of liquors — a purpose for which, in my opinion, the government was 
never established. The eighth section confers the right of search in dwelling- 
houses, and of the seizure there and destruction of liquors kept for sale. This 
would be a power which I consider in conflict with the constitution, and an 
unlawful invasion of the rights and liberties of the citizen." But what, we ask, 
are licensed taverns and groggeries but "government agencies" blighting and 
blasting the prosperity and happiness of the people ! They are the kind of 
"government agencies" which tempt the weak, ensnare the unsuspecting, and 
carry poverty, wrangling, and wretchedness to ten thousand habitations. 

Mr. Price was supported in the full conviction that he would put forth his best 
efforts to remove from the statute book the power to create these " government 
agencies," and dry up these prolific sources of agony and crime. As to the 
search clause, of which Mr. Price speaks, we need say nothing more than this : 
There is not an intelligent man in this community that feels the slightest appre- 
hension of the invasion of personal and guaranteed rights from the operation of 
the right of search. If there are those who choose to make their private dwel- 
lings dram-shops and scenes of debauch, by selling liquor contrary to law, is it 
oppressive or unconstitutional to stop them in their nefarious business ? The 
right of search for stolen property, for counterfeit money, or for any contraband 
article, is no new doctrine. Mr. Price, as a lawyer, well understands it is coeval 
with civilization, certainly with written constitutions. 

He adds : " Yet if you wish to try the sense of the people, whether they will accept 
such a law, you can have my vote to pass a law to take the vote of the people upon it ; 
but, not my aid afterwards to pass such a lawP We would fain hope that this 
paragraph was incautiously and inadvertently penned. We are not willing to believe 
that Mr. Price means what his language declares. It cannot be that a man of his 
character and standing, of his integrity and high sense of honor intended to say 
that he will not do the thing for which he was elected, and the thing to which he 
was solemnly pledged. Mr. Price knows perfectly well that, if he had made 
this declaration previous to his election, he would have been most signally de- 
feated. He would not have received the vote of a single friend of Temperance 
— but, on the contrary, would have encountered their united and earnest opposi- 
tion. It is with unfeigned sorrow and deep regret that we feel obliged to speak 
thus. Nearly four thousand of the friends of prohibition combined their efforts 
to stay the appalling ravages of intemperance. They selected Mr. Price as one 
of their candidates, with strong confidence in his integrity, and with the full 
belief that he would give his earnest advocacy to a cause infinitely more import- 
ant than any mere question of politics or governmental policy. 

We will not yet surrender the hope that Mr. Price will recall the declaration, 
which, we trust, was inadvertently made. Certainly, on mature reflection, he 
will recall it, or, as a high-minded, honorable man, he will resign the position 
he holds through the generous confidence of the friends of Prohibition. 

By order of the Executive Committee. 

SAMUEL C. FORD, Chairman. 

Cotjrtland F. Folwell, Secretary. 
Philadelphia, February 18, 1854. 

The call of the public meeting held at the County Court House, February 21, 
was a measure adopted after much discussion and mature deliberation. The 
necessity of it was deeply deplored by every member of the Committee. But 



13 

we were placed, by the published speech and the recorded votes of Mr. Price, in 
circumstances that made this step unavoidable. Mr. Price was regarded as the 
exponent of temperance principles and measures, and was known to be the special 
representative of the friends of temperance. The course he saw fit to pursue 
damaged our cause vastly more than any amount of opposition from avowed ene- 
mies. His talents, position, and influence enabled him to defeat almost any 
measure which our friends in the Senate might bring forward to suppress the 
terrible evils of intemperance. Not only so, a portion of the public press, em- 
boldened by the speeches and the votes of the special representative of the tem- 
perance interest, furnished no doubtful indications that the cause we advocate 
was to be assailed with new vigor and with a more determined opposition. As 
an illustration, we need only to refer to the long editorial in the North American 
of this city, after Mr. Price's speech on the bill before the Senate, which, to our 
knowledge, was sent to Harrisburg and exhibited as proof that public sentiment 
justified his course. The editor of that influential paper gave to it his full and 
hearty indorsement, and sent it forth to the world as worthy of universal accep- 
tation. What, then, as honest men, to whom was committed an important public 
trust, could we do less than to refuse to be held any longer responsible for the 
public acts of our representative ? The Committee disclaim all connection with 
the tumultuous proceedings at the opening of that meeting, occasioned by the in- 
trusion and clamor and noise of those who came with the design of breaking it 
up. They hold themselves responsible only for the preamble and resolutions 
which were introduced and adopted. They are the honest expression of our 
views then and noio. If they are marked by some degree of severity, we feel 
that it was called for by the betrayal of interests infinitely important to the peace, 
the happiness, and the well-being of the community. The proceedings of the 
public meeting are as follows : — 

Public Meeting, February 21, 1851-. 

The meeting was called to order by Mr. John C. Sims, who nominated the fol- 
lowing named officers : President, Mr. Thomas Wattson ; Vice-Presidents, Evan 
Rogers, James M. Linnard, Charles Robb, Colson Hieskell, Thomas S. Smith, 
A. H. Burtis, D. H. Rockhill, Leonard Jewell, S. C. Ford, John P. Collinson, 
A. R. Potter, John B. Stryker, and Walter Allison ; Secretaries, Daniel Stein- 
metz, C. F. Folwell, J. P. Simons, and James Berry. The gentlemen named 
were unanimously accepted, and the meeting elected John C. Sims a Secretary. 

The Chairman briefly stated the objects of the meeting. 

Mr. Steinmetz then read the following preamble and resolutions : — 

Whereas, The electors of the city of Philadelphia, favorable to the suppression 
of the appalling evils resulting from the rum traffic, combined their efforts pre- 
vious to the October election, irrespective of party ties and predilections, to dry 
up these prolific sources of pauperism and crime, and 

Whereas, They selected as one of their candidates to carry out, by legislative 
prohibition, this beneficent and important measure, Eli K. Price, Esq., and were 
successful in securing his election as a member of the Senate, and 

Whereas, Mr. Price has seen fit to violate his expressed and implied pledges, 
and refuses to listen to the earnest remonstrances and appeals of those who were 
instrumental in placing him in the official position which he occupies, therefore 

Resolved, By the citizens of Philadelphia, in mass meeting assembled, that as 
Mr. Price has abandoned the cause he pledged himself to support, we will not be 
held responsible for any measures which he may advocate, other than that of 
prohibition. 

Resolved, If a man swear to his own hurt, " it is better to bear the hurt," than, 
by attempting to escape it, to fall into a worse evil. 

Resolved, That it is a small favor which the people ask of their representatives, 



14 

to submit to a popular vote the decision of a question infinitely more important 
than any mere question of politics or governmental policy. 

Resolved, That the question at issue between Mr. Price and his constituents is 
not whether his views or theirs on the question of Prohibition be the most wise 
and practicable, but simply a question of integrity and official duty in carrying 
out the views of those who elected him. 

Resolved, That it is a crime of the highest political magnitude to secure, by 
evasion or concealment, or intentional fraud, the suffrages of honest, confiding 
voters, and then use the power which they have conferred to defeat their cherished 
hopes and confident expectations. 

Resolved, That Mr. Price would have saved us from deep mortification and 
himself from much censure, had he been as frank in the expression of his views 
to the friends of Prohibition before his election as he has been bold in the avowal 
of them since. 

Resolved, That "constitutional objections" to an obnoxious measure are easily 
made, and are the frequent resort of those who intend to defeat an object which 
they had promised to advocate and defend. 

Resolved, That there is one " right of search" which the people have in their 
own hands, without legislative sanction — the right to search out those who have 
betrayed their confidence, and hold them up to the public gaze. 

Resolved, That Mr. Price, as a man of honor and integrity, will resign his 
place, and give us an opportunity of electing an incumbent to fill it who will have 
fewer constitutional difficulties, and a more sacred regard to his expressed and 
implied pledges. 

Resolved, That the voters of the city of Philadelphia do fully approve and in- 
dorse the Prohibitory Liquor Law now before the Plouse of Representatives. It 
is what the State needs at this time, and has been prepared with great pains, 
expressly for the present emergency, and we desire it should be made into a law, 
without any alteration or amendment, to be submitted to a vote of the people at 
a special election. 

Resolved, That those members of the Senate and House, who have ably and 
eloquently advocated our cause, deserve, and should receive the thanks and sup- 
port of all the friends of humanity and good order. 

Resolved, In the opinion of this meeting, Eli K. Price has, in introducing into 
the Senate of this State, a law licensing the sale of alcoholic beverages, added 
insult to injury, and shown rather a regard for the interests of the rumseller than 
for those of his victims. 

Resolved, That we do not despair, though he who should have been our stand- 
ard-bearer has fallen by self-inflicted wounds. There are enough yet left to carry 
our cause triumphantly through, and they will do it, and the dynasty and curse 
of rum in our noble Commonwealth will be at an end. 

Resolved, That a copy of these resolutions, attested by the presiding officers, 
be sent to Mr. Price, and to every other member of the Legislature of this State, 
and published in the papers in this city. 



A word in regard to the meeting held on Friday evening the 3d inst., to sus- 
tain Mr. Price. It was convened under the following call : — 

" The citizens of Philadelphia, who are in favor of expressing the confidence, respect, 
and esteem of this community for Eli K. Price, Senator, are requested to meet at the 
County Court House, on Friday evening next, March 3, at 7 J o'clock." 

The gentlemen whose names were appended to the call, are highly respectable 
citizens. How many of them actually voted for Mr. Price, will be an inquiry 
of some interest at the proper time. Many of them occupy a high social position, 
but, with some exceptions, they are not the friends of the great radical reform 
which Mr. Price was elected to advocate. Their names are not associated with 



15 

the temperance movement which is engrossing the minds of the people. They 
have no sympathy with prohibition, and no confidence in it. Mr. Price and they 
see eye to eye in regard to the inexpediency and impropriety of attempting to 
proscribe the sale of ardent spirits as a beverage. They think, with him, that 
the license law should be reformed; that low groggeries should be suppressed; 
and that when men drink they should do it in prudent moderation, and in genteel 
establishments. Very well. Mr. Price should have been their candidate, not 
ours. What we complain of is, that Mr. Price intentionally or unwittingly misled 
us — encouraged us to give him our influence and votes ; contributed money to 
aid us in the contest — 

" Kept the promise to the ear, 
And broke it to the hope." 

Another thing. The resolutions adopted at this meeting are carefully guarded. 
They do not touch the controversy between Mr. Price and ourselves. They 
express the general confidence of those attending the meeting in Mr. Price's 
honesty and integrity. Six weeks ago, we could have joined in this expression 
as sincerely and heartily as any portion of our fellow-citizens ; but since then, a 
sad change has occurred in the " even tenor of his way." Our charges refer ex- 
clusively to this period. And how are they met ? By an investigation of the 
facts alleged, and by a disproval ? Not at all. No attempt of the kind is made. 
Our charges stand precisely where they did before this meeting was held. They 
are neither more nor less true. Six weeks ago, we felt as high a degree of pride 
and pleasure in Mr. Price's standing and influence in the Senate as any portion 
of the community. When he was ably and eloquently advocating the Consoli- 
dation bill, we congratulated ourselves upon our wisdom in selecting such a 
champion to war against the appalling evils of the rum traffic. We rejoiced in 
the success of this measure. It is vastly important to the interests of our city. 
But there is no comparison between the necessity of consolidation and the ne- 
cessity of arresting that burning tide which scathes so many habitations, and 
blasts so many hopes. Unfortunately for us, when consolidation was effected, 
Mr. Price had no heart to engage in the more important work of protecting his 
constituents from the curse of rum. By his influence and votes he defeated the 
very measure to which he was pledged. The " right of search," to which Mr. 
Price so strongly objected, was well answered by a writer, a few days since, in 
the Public Ledger, in the following paragraph : — 

" So far as the operation of a prohibitory law is concerned, any man may have his 
cellar full of wines and brandy, and have them on his table every day in the year if he 
thinks proper. The 'right of search' does not touch him, nor is anything of the kind 
contemplated hj the friends of temperance. They would oppose it as strongly as any por- 
tion of the community. But if a man chooses to make his dwelling-house a grog- 

GERY, AND SELL LIQUOR CONTRARY TO LAW, THEN THE ' RIGHT OP SEARCH' TAKES HOLD OF 
HIM, AND DEALS WITH HIM AS WITH A MAN WHO HAS STOLEN GOODS, OR COUNTERFEIT TOOLS." 

This is the whole of the " search clause," about which so many hard things 
have been said through ignorance, or prejudice, or passion. 

Efforts have been made to spread the idea that Mr. Price, in opposing the 
8th section of the law, on the 11th of February, is deserving of high commenda- 
tion as a champion of the constitution. He says, in his speech, that the 1st and 
8th sections of Article 9th of the Constitution " are invaded by this bill, unneces- 
sarily and unwisely invaded by it" It is difficult to conceive how they are 
invaded by it. As a long-experienced and deservedly eminent member of the 
legal profession, Mr. Price must have known that the constitution only prohibits 
unreasonable searches and seizures. He must have known that heretofore, so far 
in the past that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, it has been the 
practice to search houses, to seize persons and things, where probable cause was 
presented for its necessity supported by oath or affirmation. Mr. Price should 
not have hastily used words of circumlocution, charging a statute with unconsti- 



16 

tutionality, without first consulting legal authority to see whether he was right. 
He could not, even temporarily, have lost sight of a very conspicuous legal fact 
that there never has been a time in Pennsylvania's history when a search-warrant 
might not issue, to seek for stolen goods, upon the oath of a single person, who 
need not be a resident in the district, or known by character to the magistrate 
who took his oath. That this warrant would authorize the officer bearing it to 
demand admittance into any dwelling described in the warrant, and if the door 
of that dwelling be shut, and on demand not opened, the officer would have the 
right, and under reasonable circumstances and in the day time it would be his 
duty, to break it open and search the most secret places, demand the keys of 
trunks, closets, and boxes, and, if they be not yielded, to force them also, and if 
after all the goods are not found ; the officer would be excused. — 1 Chitty's 
Criminal Law, p. 66. 

The above doctrine is taken from an approved legal compilation, prepared for 
the guidance of magistrates in Pennsylvania, who have charge of this important 
part of criminal law. Mr. Price, as a lawyer, must know that, under this prac- 
tice, the validity and constitutionality of which was never questioned, the houses 
of innocent persons are liable to be searched. And why is it allowed? It 
would be folly to say, in the language of the constitution, as quoted by Mr. 
Price, " that among the inherent and indefeasible rights of all men is that of 
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property," if a thief or other lawbreaker 
may steal, or otherwise deprive me of, my property, secrete it in his own or 
another's house, and then bid me defiance. The inference, which Mr. Price 
would have his hearers draw, is most absurdly unconstitutional, and it is flatly 
impossible that the inherent rights of the people can be at all protected unless 
they have every reasonable means of enforcing the laws made for their protection. 
In pursuance of this necessary end, we have the search law of 1791, in 3 Smith's 
Laws of Pennsylvania, section 10, p. 42, too long to be quoted here. We 
have a more recent enactment which authorizes the manufacturer of mineral- 
water, upon making proof before an alderman, to search for, take, and carry 
away for his own use bottles with his name or mark upon them. See Pamphlet 
Laivs, 1849, pp. 524 and 680. There are also multitudes of searches, seizures, 
and forfeitures recognized by the laws of the United States, which are essential 
to the enforcement of their provisions. 

The 8th section of the liquor law, objected to by Mr. Price, and defeated in 
the Senate by his influence, is very easy on the suspected citizen; and does not 
(like other search laws) touch the unsuspected citizen at all. Ordinary search 
laws permit a warrant to issue upon probable cause, supported by the single 
oath or affirmation of any competent witness. This 8 th section, denounced as 
violative of the constitution, will not allow a warrant to issue unless two Qualified 
voters go before a magistrate of their own ward, borough, or township, and swear 
or affirm what? Not that they have reason to believe or that there is probable 
cause to infer a violation of law, but " that intoxicating liquors are kept for sale 
by a person or persons not authorized to sell the same under the provisions of the 
act!\ The same section also provides that u no diuelling-house, in which or in part 
of which a trading-shop or house of entertainment is not kept, shall be searched, 
nor any part of such dwelling-house occupied by another person than the owner 
and keeper of such trading-shop or house of entertainment. " 

If Mr. Price is really sincere in believing these very lenient provisions, with- 
out which a prohibitory law cannot be enforced, are in conflict with the constitu- 
tion or common sense, we think he is almost alone in his belief. It will be 
remembered that a meeting was called for Wednesday evening, 1st of March, 
signed " Many Citizens j" a part of the constitution was quoted in the call, and 
an attempt made to rally round Mr. Price as the friend of the constitution. This 
meeting was merged in one held on Priday following, when a different call was 
made, and all reference to the constitution was carefully avoided. There is ample 



17 



reason to believe that very few if any of Mr. Price's eminent legal friends side 
with his professed opinion on this point, and some of them it is known are ad- 
verse to it. 

The Committee who waited on Mr. Price received his assurance, he says, 
" that the only pledge he would give them was that which his life might afford." 
If Mr. Price had not then concealed what he was bound in common honesty to 
reveal, they would have left the office with the knowledge that he had within 
four years before let lots near Columbia Bridge for Lager Beer vaults, and fur- 
nished money to assist in building them. That he had not scrupled to testify 
his willingness that property owned by him should be occupied as a tavern. 
When such a man, unrepentant, as far as appears, stands up in these days in the 
Senate and says : "lama thorough Temperance man, and that both in practice 
and profession;" he must excuse us for doubting his sincerity, notwithstanding 
his heretofore unsullied reputation for veracity and honor. He must excuse us 
for not having confidence in one who has thus palpably assailed his own reputa- 
tion, and for believing that his alleged constitutional objections to the right of 
search serve indubitably to show one of two things, that he is either extremely 
ignorant of constitutional law, or extremely unfair in urging that as a reason for 
his vote which he does not believe to be a reason ; and we are sorry beyond ex- 
pression that he whom we not long since esteemed so highly should have placed 
himself in a dilemma so unfortunate. 

After his election — on the happy result of which, as we then esteemed it, we 
offered him a thousand congratulations — he said : "I mean the Temperance men 
shall never regret having selected me as their candidate. I mean to do not only 
what I engaged to do, but more." He also said, it would be the solace of his 
dying hour if he could be instrumental in arresting the tide of evils which flow 
from intemperance. 

And yet Mr. Price has been chiefly instrumental in defeating, thus far, a 
measure infinitely important to the prosperity and happiness and well-being of 
this community. Not only so, he means to persist in this course, as his written 
testimony proves. Let every candid man read, and compare, and reconcile the 
following contradictory statements if he can : — 

On February 16, 1854, Senator Price wrote 
as follows to the Temperance Executive Com- 
mittee of this city : — 

" If you wish to try the sense of the peo- 
ple, whether they will accept such a law, 
you can have my vote to pass a law to take 
the vote of the people upon it, but not my 
aid afterwards to pass such a law." 



On February 11, 1854, Senator Price read 

as follows from a written speech, prepared 

for the Senate : — 

"The Temperance party were distinctly 
told that I would not vote for a Prohibitory 
Law, without a previous vote, pledging the 
support of it to the people, and that for a 
law or resolution to take the vote of the peo- 
ple I would vote, and for that I am now pre- 
pared to vote." 

No matter how appalling are the ravages of intemperance, Mr. Price would 
not give his aid to pass a Prohibitory Law for its suppression. The sighs and 
the groans of the victims of this vice appealed to him to remove the maddening 
cup beyond their reach. Wives and mothers, fathers and sons, implored him to 
dry up that bitter fountain which was filling their hearts and habitations with 
agony and woe. The ministers of justice spread before him the appalling fact, that 
eleven thousand six hundred and thirty-two wretched inebriates were 
committed to the Philadelphia County Prison during the past year. The min- 
isters of religion pointed him to the miserable end and appalling doom of the 
thousands who are corrupted and destroyed by the cupidity of unprincipled rum- 
sellers. Tax payers urged their oppressive burdens resulting from the promiscu- 
ous sale of ardent spirits. Widows, made such by this fell destroyer, conjured 
2 



18 

him to save their sons from the temptations and the ruin to which they are ex- 
posed. But all these pleas were in vain. " Government agencies, and the right 
of search/' are so " unconstitutional," that this tide of misery and death must 
flow on. Such, in effect, was the response of Mr. Price. 

The editor of the Lancaster Express, in an able article, has the following : — 

"There is some mystery in Mr. Price's course which has not yet been revealed. Dur- 
ing the sitting of the State Temperance Convention last month, we had a conversation 
with a wholesale liquor dealer, doing business in Market Street, Philadelphia, andAe boldly 
insisted that Mr. Price would oppose the Law, and he even went so far as to offer to bet 
any amount of money that such would be his course. Of course, this wholesale liquor 
dealer must have known his man. It seems the temperance men of Philadelphia did not. 
Either Mr. Price has deceived them, or they have deceived themselves. Judging from his 
votes on the Liquor bill, his written speech against it, and his letter to the Philadelphia 
Committee, we incline to the former opinion. By his vote, so far as the Senate is con- 
cerned, at least three thousand human beings must be murdered by the liquor traffic in 
Pennsylvania diiring another year ! He has assumed the responsibility — let him bear it." 

Every newspaper in the State hostile to our-cause, is loud in commendation of 
Mr. Price's independence, ability, and legal acumen. His name is shouted with 
acclamations of praise in every bar-room and groggery. The reeling, staggering 
drunkard claims him as his patron and friend. That he is not ours, his public acts 
and recorded votes, furnish abundant proof. For all the gold of Ophir, we would 
not bear the responsibility which Mr. Price has assumed. "To him, it may seem 
a light matter, not worthy of serious regard. To us, it would be like mountains 
of lead, bearing more and more heavily as we approach the dread tribunal of Him 
" who maketh inquisition for blood." 

Deeply do we deplore the necessity of this apparent severity, and of spreading 
this history before the public. But fidelity to the trust committed to us, the 
vast interests at stake, and the cause of suffering, bleeding humanity, left us no 
alternative. Here we leave the whole subject to an enlightened, candid public, 
and cheerfully abide their verdict of this unhappy, painful controversy. 

By order of the Executive Committee. 

THOMAS WATTSON, 

CoURTLAND P. Folwell, Chairman. 

Secretary. 

Philadelphia, March 4, 1854. 



<L.cccr <rc 
grocer est 



«^«C 






US 



c«cc< 

C<3C 
cm 

• <3X€ 

CSC « 
CC<3 

Bsdsac 

COCf 






am 



ex 



'05 



fe££ 



s<^c: 









*££ 



SC«C 

sic<: 






<sc 



: <Cc 
ccic 

CCc.r:C 

ccor < 

CTCCCg 
CcCtT'-C 3 

■iCCC 
^CC~o 

<ZCCc:c 



|-^- ««^C 



. - -csSc-- 



' C( cc_c 



icC. *sOC OCX- cj<c 

CC «?^5i<«^C 

' c'i -*dc «K c«f£c; 










ore cp: *L^ <1 















0^ € ^ C - { 









c: <r <cc 

aocE crc 
c<ti cc 
<r<c crc 
c <£ <cc 



7c CC 






5? c; 









crcc 

CccC 



G7<« 



I2C<CL 






<3:Cc<C 






<^<ac 



\«Et< 



«c^ 






.c CI 



<T€1 



<d 


esse 


4 


<r 


&XZ 


~""< 


<SZi 


CSSZ 


"< 


<cn 


<rcx: 


<L 


Gi 


<cccr 


<E 


«CL 


• <if«z: 


. *: 






1 


r" 


<src" .« 


T : 


< 


re *3 


I :« 


-. <*■*" 


" <r< 


r^K<c<< 


(( 


rpxtd 


■<^c: 


I CJCICCI 


<rr 


«^^cTCC 


<JC 






